A.M. No. 97-2-53-RTC - IN RE: Marcos

The case involves the People of the Philippines as the plaintiff-appellee and Jerry C. Palotes as the accused-appellant.
The prosecution charged the accused on January 5, 2007, with one count of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353.
The offense centered on the sexual abuse of a minor, designated as AAA, a 14-year-old girl with mental abilities equivalent to an 8- to 9-year-old child.
The charge specified that the accused, with deliberate intent, committed carnal knowledge without consent—taking advantage of the victim’s mental disability.

AAA, the private complainant, testified in detail about the abuse, recounting three distinct incidents.
AAA’s mother (BBB) corroborated aspects of the testimony by identifying the accused and providing additional background information.
Medical evidence emerged through testimony by Dr. Naomi N. Poca, the medico-legal officer, who based her findings on the physical and anogenital examination of AAA.
Psychologist Dr. Rosemarie Gonato’s evaluation confirmed AAA’s mental age and indicated mild mental retardation.

The accused allegedly first encountered AAA when she was returning from buying a diaper for a neighbor.
During the first incident, the accused forcibly took AAA into his house, removed her clothing, kissed her, and inserted his penis into her vagina; he later advised her to keep silent about the event.
A second incident occurred when AAA was asked by a friend to look after a niece; once again, the accused invited the minor into his house and repeated similar abusive actions despite her protests.
A third incident reportedly took place when the accused was washing clothes in front of AAA’s house, during which he once more removed her clothing and committed the abuse.

AAA’s mother and grandmother observed that AAA’s menstrual cycle was absent and later discovered that she was pregnant.
AAA eventually disclosed that the accused was the perpetrator, and her testimony was supported by a birth certificate and subsequent medical documentation.
The Medico-Legal Certificate and the anogenital assessment provided concrete physical evidence of blunt or penetrative trauma.
DNA tests, conducted at the request of the defense, confirmed a 99.9995% probability that the accused was the biological father of AAA’s child, DDD.

The prosecution introduced several documentary exhibits including affidavits of AAA and BBB, medical certificates, photographic evidence from the anogenital examination, and the psychological evaluation report.
The defense countered with testimonies from the accused, a neighbor (Rose Bistes), and Marina Abella, the owner of the accused’s rented house, along with a counter-affidavit.
The defense advanced an alibi and argued that AAA’s identification was the result of external suggestion and manipulation by her relatives.
The accused also claimed that his frequent absence from the rented house (due to his work as a janitor and job hunting) made it impossible for him to commit the crime.

The Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 14, found the accused guilty of one count of rape based on the clear and detailed testimony of AAA and the corroborative medical evidence.
The trial court emphasized AAA’s firsthand narration and the specifics of the incidents, stating that her testimony, given her mental condition, was credible and crucial in establishing the facts.
The court held that the DNA test, while indicative of paternity, was irrelevant to the crime of rape per se.
Consequently, the trial court sentenced the accused to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay civil damages of Php50,000 to the minor through her parents.

The Court of Appeals reaffirmed the conviction, modifying the order on civil indemnity by awarding Php50,000 plus interest as indemnity.
The appellate court upheld the credibility of AAA’s testimony despite her mental condition and found the defense’s alibi and counter-testimonies to be insufficient.
The Court highlighted that inconsistencies in collateral details did not undermine the fundamental and consistent identification of the accused.

Whether AAA’s testimony, despite her mental retardation, was sufficiently credible to establish the fact of rape beyond reasonable doubt.
If the detailed and specific recounting of abuse, including multiple incidents, was reliable as evidence.

The role of medical evidence—specifically, the Medico-Legal Certificate and the anogenital examination findings—in corroborating AAA’s account.
Whether the DNA testing, which confirmed paternity, was relevant to proving the crime of rape.

Assessing the defense’s counter-affidavits and testimonies regarding the accused’s whereabouts and character.
Determining if the evidence presented by defense witnesses could substantiate the accused’s assertion of denial or support an alternative explanation.

Whether the crime as defined in Article 266-A, specifically the provision regarding a victim deprived of reason (due to mental retardation), was properly applied.
The effect of the accused’s knowledge of AAA’s mental disability on enhancing the gravity of the crime.